Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZRMumYtYFM
This is, of course, part of Lorillard/Blu's ongoing advertising campaign promoting harm reduction; for earlier efforts, click here.
This advert appears to have been made in 2010 / 2011, before Lorillard purchased blu in April 2012. Could you tell us why you decided to link to an advert that is several years old, rather than more recent content from blu? Did you check whether Lorillard was involved in the making of this advert, or do you have evidence that they were involved in the deliberate dissemination of the advert recently, or after acquiring blu? If you have such evidence perhaps you could post it on this blog - thanks.
For more detail on this advert, including comments from its maker and blu's current attitude towards it, please see the storify link below:
Usually when you buy a company you by everything they did along with including "seeded" ad campaigns done "virally" on behalf of the company by related parties (contractors to your ad agency). In other words Lorillard may well own it and know they do... Certainly fits with their "locked and loaded" swim suit campaign.
Lorillard owns the Blu trademark. It can bring down the ad from Youtube any time it wants. Has it done so?
Didn't think so.
So Lorillard is either failing to protect its brand or going along with the ad.
Interesting Storify, Jon.
It's a typical digital marketing tactic to conduct contests for "consumer engagement" as apparently happened in this case. We've seen the same from soda companies too (see http://digitalads.org/how-youre-targeted/case-studies/dewmocracy). In the marketing literature when these tactics are discussed there's usually some concern expressed about how the marketer might lose control of the brand's depiction, a valuable commodity they all guard closely, as we know.
Even though Lorillard didn't own the brand when the contest was held and the video made, your conversation indicates that it's still okay with Lorillard to objectify women in order to sell addiction. Otherwise, seems to me, a cease and desist letter would be in order.
--Lori Dorfman, Berkeley Media Studies Group